Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[dhog]

td@pixar.com writes:
> > >PS: let's not go into DSW on Linux LI
> >
> > Please define "DSW on Linux LI".
> >
> > Is "DSW" "distributed software"?
> 
> dsw(I) (from my 5th edition manual, in later editions dsw
> was replaced by rm -i):
> 
> NAME
> 	dsw -- delete interactively

Ahh.  I thought it stood for "dick size wars".

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Boyd Roberts]

yep i-num from the switches.  never used it but i remember the history.

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Tom Duff]

On Aug 3,  6:12am, forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:
> `delete from switches' if memory serves (ie, file
> name placed in console switches)

>From memory:

It was the I-number that was entered in the
switches.  The original dsw read the switches,
printed the file name (I think) and dumped core.
This was in an ancient Unix version in which
core files were restartable.  So you typed
`core' to remove the file!

(The purpose of the program was to get rid
of files whose names contained untypable
characters.)

Somewhere I have an autographed (by dmr) copy
of the original dsw source code.

-- 
Tom Duff.  Haddocks' Eyes.

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Tom Duff]

-- 
Tom Duff.  Haddocks' Eyes.

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Boyd Roberts]

dsw?  yer gonna need a pdp11 :)

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Alexander Viro]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:

> >>NAME
> >>	dsw -- delete interactively
> 	...
> >>BUGS
> >>	The name dsw is a carryover from the ancient past. Its
> >>	etymology is amusing.
> 
> `delete from switches' if memory serves (ie, file name placed in console switches)

Was it a name or inumber?

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[forsyth]

>>NAME
>>	dsw -- delete interactively
	...
>>BUGS
>>	The name dsw is a carryover from the ancient past. Its
>>	etymology is amusing.

`delete from switches' if memory serves (ie, file name placed in console switches)

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Tom Duff]

> >PS: let's not go into DSW on Linux LI
>
> Please define "DSW on Linux LI".
>
> Is "DSW" "distributed software"?

dsw(I) (from my 5th edition manual, in later editions dsw
was replaced by rm -i):

NAME
	dsw -- delete interactively

SYNOPSIS
	dsw [directory]

DESCRIPTION
	For each file in the given directory (`.' if not specified)
	dsw types its name.  If y is typed, the file is deleted;
	if x, dsw exits; if new-line, the file is not deleted; if
	anything else, dsw asks again.

SEE ALSO
	rm(I)

BUGS
	The name dsw is a carryover from the ancient past. Its
	etymology is amusing.

-- 
Tom Duff.  Are you being served?

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Tom Duff]

-- 
Tom Duff.  I don't know what this block of code does. It seems to serve
no purpose, but if I remove it, the program stops working.

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Boyd Roberts]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
To: Boyd Roberts <boyd@planete.net>
Cc: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW 


> 
> 
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Boyd Roberts wrote:
> 
> > _learn_ them BOZO?  he'll i've grown up with 'em.
> 
> I stand amazed. Such a wonderful imitation of clueless advocate...
> 
> > man i've forgotten more clues than you'll _ever_ learn.
> 
> Including ones on the normal ways to quote? Figures...
> 
> > you _tried_ to fix linux?  that says a _lot_.
> 
> Why not? After 4.4, -Reno, 4.2 and a couple of v7 clones? Yet another
> kernel. In some respects shittier, in some - better. Definitely has VFS
> with a potential to become really decent. Moronic advocates? Sure. Wish
> they would go and play in a traffic, but it's not going to happen ;-/
> That sort of lusers always had been around.
> 
> [snip the original posting, quoted in whole]
> 
> -- 
> Fairy Tails start "Once upon a time."
> Army/Sea stories start "This is no shit."
> Software proposals start "1.0."
> Joe Zeff in the Monastery
> 
>

man, you got a serious insecurity problem.

i only replied with a call to authority because
you acted like a child.  i got nothin' to proove.

maybe you should learn that lesson.

thing that strikes me is that ken (and others) could
act like total arseholes because of what they have
done.  this is not the case.  they are amoung the finest
human beings on the planet.

--
Boyd Roberts                            boyd@psycho-basket-case.org

    ``I come over here to kill them cocksuckers, not work for 'em''

          -- Moon Dog, _Pettibone's Law_, John Keene

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Alexander Viro]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Boyd Roberts wrote:

> _learn_ them BOZO?  he'll i've grown up with 'em.

I stand amazed. Such a wonderful imitation of clueless advocate...

> man i've forgotten more clues than you'll _ever_ learn.

Including ones on the normal ways to quote? Figures...

> you _tried_ to fix linux?  that says a _lot_.

Why not? After 4.4, -Reno, 4.2 and a couple of v7 clones? Yet another
kernel. In some respects shittier, in some - better. Definitely has VFS
with a potential to become really decent. Moronic advocates? Sure. Wish
they would go and play in a traffic, but it's not going to happen ;-/
That sort of lusers always had been around.

[snip the original posting, quoted in whole]

-- 
Fairy Tails start "Once upon a time."
Army/Sea stories start "This is no shit."
Software proposals start "1.0."
				Joe Zeff in the Monastery

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Boyd Roberts]

_learn_ them BOZO?  he'll i've grown up with 'em.

man i've forgotten more clues than you'll _ever_ learn.

you _tried_ to fix linux?  that says a _lot_.

207:boyd:boyd:

--
Boyd Roberts                            boyd@psycho-basket-case.org

    ``I come over here to kill them cocksuckers, not work for 'em''

          -- Moon Dog, _Pettibone's Law_, John Keene

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
To: Boyd Roberts <boyd@planete.net>; <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW 


> 
> 
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Boyd Roberts wrote:
> 
> > yeah, just a bit more code in linux and then we'd really have
> > something -- a bigger piece of shit than we already have.
> 
> _less_ code, please. And you are apparently confusing the thing with GNU.
> 
> > you do MORE with LESS.
> 
> You know, that bright idea occured to many people. It would be really fine
> if you would manage to learn arcane utilities called find(1), wc(1) and
> tar(1) and took a look at 2.2 and 2.4. Particulary, at the subtree called
> "fs".
> 
> IOW, getting some clue before posting is usually a good idea. Keeping
> advocacy in the gutter where it belongs is also considered a Good
> Thing(tm).
> 
> PS: let's not go into DSW on Linux LI, OK? I really can bring more
> examples of its suckitude than you will ever be able to. Honest.
> BT,DT,fixed quite a few of them.
> 
> Al "-15kLOC during the last year" Viro
> 
> 

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Alexander Viro]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Richard wrote:

> Alexander Viro writes:
> 
> >PS: let's not go into DSW on Linux LI
> 
> Please define "DSW on Linux LI".
> 
> Is "DSW" "distributed software"?

LI: Lovelace Index.
Lovelace: unit of suckitude.  This is defined as:  One Lovelace is the
amount of force (measured in dynes) it takes to draw a round ball weighing
e Troy Ounces down a tube it fits exactly (in air) at a speed of pi
attoparsecs/microfortnight.

Meaning of DSW is left as an exercise for reader. No, not "delete from
switches"...

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Richard]

Alexander Viro writes:

>PS: let's not go into DSW on Linux LI

Please define "DSW on Linux LI".

Is "DSW" "distributed software"?

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Alexander Viro]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Boyd Roberts wrote:

> yeah, just a bit more code in linux and then we'd really have
> something -- a bigger piece of shit than we already have.

_less_ code, please. And you are apparently confusing the thing with GNU.

> you do MORE with LESS.

You know, that bright idea occured to many people. It would be really fine
if you would manage to learn arcane utilities called find(1), wc(1) and
tar(1) and took a look at 2.2 and 2.4. Particulary, at the subtree called
"fs".

IOW, getting some clue before posting is usually a good idea. Keeping
advocacy in the gutter where it belongs is also considered a Good
Thing(tm).

PS: let's not go into DSW on Linux LI, OK? I really can bring more
examples of its suckitude than you will ever be able to. Honest.
BT,DT,fixed quite a few of them.

			Al "-15kLOC during the last year" Viro

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Boyd Roberts]

yeah, just a bit more code in linux and then we'd really have
something -- a bigger piece of shit than we already have.

you do MORE with LESS.

--
Boyd Roberts                            boyd@psycho-basket-case.org

    ``I come over here to kill them cocksuckers, not work for 'em''

          -- Moon Dog, _Pettibone's Law_, John Keene

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW 


> > Is Linux NOW what Scott was thinking of?
> 
> No, I was thinking of Alexander Viro and his collaborators, who, if I
> understand correctly, were going to add 9p and (some kind of) namespaces
> to the regular linux kernel.
> 
> 

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Alexander Viro]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Scott Schwartz wrote:

> > Is Linux NOW what Scott was thinking of?
> 
> No, I was thinking of Alexander Viro and his collaborators, who, if I
> understand correctly, were going to add 9p and (some kind of) namespaces
> to the regular linux kernel.

9p support isn't mine - Roman is doing it and looks like his stuff works
against u9fs these days.

	Namespaces... Well, see previous posting. I have no contacts with 
the Progeny guys, and as the matter of fact I had not seen anything from
them. Neither on fsdevel nor on l-k. Hell knows, they may be for real -
there's not much work left, so I certainly would not be surprised to see
such patches. However, they will have to do an accurate work with changing
->readdir(). And since we are in <cough> code freeze, such a change is not
likely to go into 2.4.0-release. It certainly will go into VFS-CURRENT.

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Scott Schwartz]

> Is Linux NOW what Scott was thinking of?

No, I was thinking of Alexander Viro and his collaborators, who, if I
understand correctly, were going to add 9p and (some kind of) namespaces
to the regular linux kernel.

Re: [9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Alexander Viro]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Richard Uhtenwoldt wrote:

> a startup called ProgenyLinux.com plans to add to Linux per-process

<raised brows> Startup called ProgenyLinux.com would do everybody a big
favour if they would appear on linux-fsdevel and talk about their plans on
somewhat, eh, more technical level. Paint me cynical, but when information
goes through such channels as SplashSnort _and_ does not appear (a single
fscking word) on development maillists...

> namespaces and a network filesystem partially inspired by Plan 9,
> resulting in a product tentatively called Linux NOW where "NOW" stands
> for "network or workstations".  I attach an abridged version of Ian
> Murdoch's description of the plans followed by some hints on how well
> financed ProgenyLinux.com is.

namespaces for 2.4 are essentially trivial at that point - it will take
a cleanup of ->readdir() interface to make union-mounts possible and we
will be there; adding GC into mntput(9) and copying the tree in do_fork(9)
is a one-day hack and the real problem is to kill ->ioctl() on directories
and get rid of passing struct file* to ->readdir(). That, in turn, depends
on credentials cache being in place.

All infrastructure for namespace handling is already there, so if these
guys want to do the last steps - fine, but I'ld like to look at their
code. It involves interface changes and such things should be done right
or not at all.

[9fans] Progeny Linux's Linux NOW

[Richard Uhtenwoldt]

a startup called ProgenyLinux.com plans to add to Linux per-process
namespaces and a network filesystem partially inspired by Plan 9,
resulting in a product tentatively called Linux NOW where "NOW" stands
for "network or workstations".  I attach an abridged version of Ian
Murdoch's description of the plans followed by some hints on how well
financed ProgenyLinux.com is.

on a related note, on June 12 Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
wrote, "I don't know the precise status of this, but linux developers
are working on adding 9p to their system."  is Linux NOW what Scott was
thinking of?  if not, I'd appreciate more info.

this next comes from
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/07/27/1526236

    Linux NOW makes a network look like a single system to simplify the
   task of managing the network, sharing resources on the network, making
   the network secure, providing a consistent environment to users. <snip>

          Linux NOW is about building a good abstraction, about
   simplifying, about reducing big problems to smaller, more approachable
                                 problems.

    We are writing a new file system. Many of the features that we need
    have been implemented in one file system or another, but there is no
   one file system that does all we need in one package. The file system
     that we're writing is largely influenced by the Sprite file system
    (http://HTTP.CS.Berkeley.EDU/Research/Projects/sprite/sprite.html),
      but we're integrating in various bits and pieces from other file
    systems where that makes sense. For example, Sprite was written ten
   years ago, and these days, networks are no longer static things, they
   contain laptops and mobile devices that come and go, and those mobile
    devices should be equal members of the network of workstations. So,
    we're looking very closely at projects like Coda and InterMezzo that
    provide support for mobile computing and disconnected operation, and
     borrowing ideas and code from those where that makes sense. We are
     also looking at cluster file systems, like GFS, and other network
               operating systems, particularly Plan 9. <snip>

   If you could take 2 features from two other operating systems and add
                     them to *nix what would they be?

                                    Ian:

      The first feature I would add to Unix is a good distributed file
   system. Unix has been lacking in this department for a long time. This
      is really unfortunate, because the file system is such a central
    abstraction in Unix, arguably *the* central abstraction in Unix. In
   Unix, if you can get the file system right, solutions to a remarkable
   number of very difficult problems just fall out, so the lack of a good
     distributed file system has really been the central thing that has
          made networks of workstations so hard to manage and use.

     The most important thing that a file system does is provide a name
    space, a high-level view of data storage. In spite of this, this is
    exactly where most network file systems for Unix fall short. Network
      file systems for Unix tend to be designed to share private name
    spaces, rather than to build common, network-oriented, network-wide
      name spaces. Look at the current state of affairs in Unix. Each
   machine on the network has its own disk and its own private name space
    built above it. Unix gives us NFS and AFS and other file systems to
   share name spaces, but the end result is that all these machines still
      have their own disks and their own name spaces built above them.
   Resources are scattered all over the network, and you end up with this
    crazy quilt of name spaces stitched together in haphazard ways. Some
     of the name spaces are shared, some aren't, and some parts of the
   private name spaces need to be shared but can't be shared easily. So,
        you end up with all sorts of problems, like how do you keep
   configuration consistent, how do you provide a consistent environment
     to users, how do you keep software up to date, and things get very
                          complicated in a hurry.
 
   In terms of what other operating systems have done with file systems,
   Sprite got the name space issue right. Sprite provided a single system
     image across a cluster of machines, including a single file system
   image; so, although there may be many computers and thus many disks in
     the network, there is one file system shared by all of them. Unix
       needs a file system that builds a network-wide name space, and
    provides high performance, high availability, good security, support
                for mobile computing, and other things too.

   The second feature I would add to Unix are the per-process name spaces
     of Plan 9. That is just an incredibly good idea. Although they are
     different in many ways, Plan 9 is like Sprite in that it builds a
     single system image across a network of machines, and there is one
     file system providing access to a global set of resources, just as
      there is in Sprite. The difference is that, in Plan 9, machines,
      users, and even processes can build their own local view of this
   global name space, rather than sharing one common view. This is a very
   powerful mechanism because you don't always want to see the same name
   space. For example, how do you deal with heterogeneity in a network of
    workstations? How do you deal with different classes of machines or
   users with varying access rights to the network's resources? Plan 9's
      per-process name spaces address these kinds of issues in a very
                                elegant way.

from a Progeny Linux press release:

   Indianapolis: July 10, 2000 - Progeny Linux Systems announces that it
   has completed its first round of financing. The new company has
   received seed capital through a private placement. <snip>

   Both Ian Murdock, president and CEO of Progeny, and Bruce Perens,
   Chairman of the Board of Directors, have served as Debian Project
   Leader and are involved in the Linux community. Other members of
   Progeny's staff are active Debian developers. Dr John H. Hartman,
   Chief Technical Officer, is an expert on computer operating and
   storage systems, and an Assistant Professor at the University of
   Arizona. Bern Galvin, Chief Financial Officer, has over twenty years
   of corporate financial experience, with expertise in viability
   analysis, organizational restructuring, due diligence, acquisitions,
   and corporate startups.

   Financing for Progeny was obtained with the help of the Linux Capital
   Group (www.linuxvc.com). Investors include a mixture of venture
   capitalists, investment bankers, angels, and the officers of several
   large publicly traded companies. Despite the volatility in the public
   markets, the financing was heavily oversubscribed.

   More details about Progeny's plans will be released in the next few
   months. For more information, contact info@progenylinux.com, or phone
   1-317-833-0313. <snip>
  
   Progeny Linux System is an Open Source
   company. We are firmly committed to Open Source, open development, and
   the community of developers and users that makes our business
   possible.